Fuel to be remaining at what ever point location was at 1912GMT
I realise that if Earhart is to be at Howland at 1912 GMT that something has to be done about the Groundspeed....
If my timing at the ONTARIO is correct at 1036 GMT (just after the 1030 GMT "Ship in sight call, ie: 6 minutes and 12 miles later) then there is 8.6 hours (8:36) in time and 1267 miles to run.... That means the G/S must be increased to an average of 147.3 mph. I have a wind at the ONTARIO of -32 mph, meaning that the TAS average has to be 179.3 mph. say 180 mph to round it off.
The AUW at that point is 11.950 lbs and THP Required (at the props - 80%) for that speed of 180 mph TAS at 10,000 feet is 526 H.P meaning the Total H.P to be available is 657 H.P.. At an SFC of 0.45 that requires 296 lbs of fuel per hour or 49 USGPH. That will drop off somewhat as weight burns off and a projection would be that by 8.6 hours the AUW would be around 9700 lbs burning 267 lbs/hr or 45 USGPH at a power setting giving 594 H.P. total. That means an average usage over 8.6 hours of 47 USGPH... so, the 8.6 hours would use 387 USG.
In the back of AE's mind and in FN's mind would also be fuel for The Contingency Plan... a "must" if they miss Howland.
As they leave the ONTARIO my plot shows 644 USG Remaining. If the above power setting was used, then at 1912GMT the fuel remaining would be 257 USG. Big question is would they up the power and use an average 47 USGPH ? The throttles are already open, the power is now controlled by MAP. set by the propeller pitch levers...
The Engine Consideration
However, there is another consideration. On the P&W power curve chart that requirement for that power at 10,000 feet shows at 26.5 inches of MAP at 1800 rpm, which is near enough to "full power", way over MAX. Continuous.... and the required SFC shown is 0.52 which means 657 x 0.52 = 57 USGPH down to 594 x 0.52 = 52 USGPH at 9700 lbs AUW, ie, averaging near 55 USGPH, but the engines say "We can't do that.for 8.6 hours, we can only do that in short bursts..."
My conclusion is that Earhart would not risk an engine failure or even a double engine failure at that level of power setting...besides which.... the engines won't like it... at all.
WASP powered aircraft on ENB identification
That is what we have been saying and I cannot put my finger on any other aircraft it would be , given the map evidence and the description given by the Vets. That is the very reason why I bother with all this and the very reason why I seek funding...
Last edited by David Billings; 17th May 2018 at 06:46.